Urban Studies, Vol. 33, No. 1, 107±110, 1996
Why Sassen is Wrong: A Response to Burgers Chris Hamnett {Paper received in ®nal form, September 1995}
Burgers raises some very important issues in of polaris polarisati ation on encompasse encompassess both profes profes- hi s re ply pl y to m y pa pe r (H a m ne tt, 19 94 a ). sionalisation and growing unemployment. Befor Beforee deali dealing ng with with Burger Burger’s ’s subst substant antive ive (Burgers (Burgers,, 1996, 1996, p. 100) po ints in ts , it is im port po rtan an t to m ak e c lear le ar that th at , He goes on to argue (p. 101) that the unemcontrary to what Burgers suggests, I did no t ploy pl oy e d ar e he av ily il y ov e rrep rr ep re se nted nt ed in th e bi g criticise the `global city thesis’ per se. se . What c it iti es es , e ssp p ec ec ia ia ll ll y a m on on g e th th ni ni c m i no no ri ri ty ty I criticised is Saskia Sassen’s speci®c argug ro ro up up s a nd nd h e s ug ug ge ge sstts t ha ha t w h en en t h i s i s m e nt nt r eg eg ar ar d diin g th e n a tu tur e a nd nd c au au se se s of take ta ke n into in to ac co unt: un t: ªo n e co ul d ar gu e th a t tha th a t po lari la ri sa tio n in glob gl ob a l c ities iti es . T his hi s is no t th e ther th er e is a do ubl ub l e proc pr oc e ss of pola po la ris a tio n go same thing at all. I made it very clear in my ing on in Dutch citiesº. pa pe r that th at:: He also also suggests suggests that the use of the RandIt is not my intention here to criticise the stad as a unit of observation is disputable and global global city city thes thesis is,, which which has very very concon- that th at , a lth oug ou g h th e fou fo u r citi ci ties es a re func fu nc tio ti o na ll y sider siderable able theoret theoretical ical leverag leverage. e. My inteninten- related, there are differences in social com tio n, ra the th e r, is to outli ou tlin n e , an d then th en posi po siti tio o n be tw e en the th e m , a nd be tw e en th e m critically examine the associated thesis of and thei theirr subu suburbs rbs in terms terms of employmen employment t social polarisation in global cities. (Ham- and ethnic ethnicity, ity, and that I neglect neglect substan substanti tial al ne tt, tt , 19 94 a , p. 403 40 3 ) intra-urban variation. Burgers is quite correct that my data were I am also not sure that Burgers is correct in restricted to the employed population and I saying that the global cities thesis claims to would entirely accept that if we also look at be paradigmatic for other cities, or that Mol th e gro gr o w th in th e un e m ploy pl oy e d a dif fe re nt lenko lenkopf pf and Castel Castells ls (199 (1991) 1) argue argue that that all all pict pi ctur ur e em er ge s. M y argu ar gu m en t, ho w ev er , cities cities w ill become dual cities. This overstates was not that some form of polarisation does thei th ei r thes th es is. is . Le av in g this th is ra the th e r cruc cr uc ial ia l po in t no t ex ist is t in th e R a ndst nd st a d or in oth e r glob gl obaa l to on e side si de , th e fo cu s of B urg ur g e rs’s rs ’s crit cr itiqu iqu e of cities, cities, but that that the speci®c argument about about my analy analysi siss of occupa occupati tiona onall change change in the the th e na ture tu re a nd ca use us e s of po lari la ri sa tio n ad Ra R a ndst nd st a d is th a t the th e da ta I use us e ar e bias bi as ed in vanced by Sassen on the basis of her work in that th at the th e y do no t incl in clud ud e th e un e m plo ye d . H e New York and L os Angeles does not necessnecessargues that there has been a major increase in arily arily apply apply in other other global cities cities.. Indeed, Indeed, I unemployment in the Netherlands since the would argue argue that Burgers’s Burgers’s argument about about mid 1970s and that: th e cr uc ial ia l ro le of un e m ploy pl oy m e nt an d th e If one looks not only to characteristics of welfare welfare state state in the Netherl Netherland andss reinfor reinforces ces th e pe op l e hold ho ldin in g jobs jo bs , bu t incl in clud ud e s th e ra th th er er th an an u nd nd er er m in in es es m y c ri ri ti q ue ue o f unemployed, the picture changes dramati- Sassen’s Sassen’s polarisati polarisation on thesis. thesis. cally. cally. I will contend that the D utch version Sassen’s thesis is almost exclusively con-
10 8
CHRIS HAMNETT
cerned with the changing industrial and occupational structure of global cities and with th e cha ngin g na ture an d su pp ly of job s in thes e cities . He r thes is re volve s ar ou nd th e structure of employment and labour demand (Sassen, 1984, 1991). One searches in vain for a discussion of unemployment or forms of polarisation which may derive from other causes. Sassen’s thesis is mono-causal and related to changes in the occupational and income structure of the employed population. In her view, changes in industrial structure and occupational composition associated with the growth of advanced business and ®nancial services in global cities and the a ss oc ia te d ge nt ri ®c atio n f or lo w -w ag e labour, lead to absolute growth at both the to p an d bo tto m end of th e oc cu pa tio na l an d income structure. But this is a speci®cally American interpretation of the causes and forms of polarisation, which is based on a society with relatively limited welfare state prov ision an d ex tre m ely high (a nd co ntinuing) levels of immigration from low-wage countries. Th e prob le m w ith he r th esis is that in almost all Western capitalist countries, the occupational structure of the economically active population, as Burgers accepts in the Netherlands, is becoming professionalised no t pola ris ed. In othe r w ords , th e prop ort io n of professional and managerial workers is steadily increasing (Hamnett, 1994b). In many European societies (and major cities), ther e is a co m bin atio n of incr ea sing inco m e po lari sa tio n alon gs ide a growin g prof es sion alisation within the paid labour force. I en tir el y ac cep t th at this is ofte n ac co m pa nied by the growth of unemployment and welfaredependent populations (hence the growth in income polarisation), but the causes of the growth of income polarisation are quite different from those outlined by Sassen and I would endorse Burgers’s suggestion that Esping-Anderson’s (1993) work on welfare state regimes provides a valuable theoretical approach to polarisation (see Hamnett, 1995, for a discussion). A s E s pi ng- A nd er so n (1 993 ) a nd B u ck (1991, 1994) have convincingly shown, the
forms of income inequality and polarisation between the US and various E uropean coun tri es are asso ciated wit h th e co ntra st be tw ee n thei r wel fare state re gim es an d th e extent to which the extent of state employment and the scale and extent of unemployment and other bene®ts, such as the Dutch disability bene®t, enable people to survive outside the paid la bo u r m a r ke t. I n th e U S th e gr o wth o f a low-income consumer-service sector is partly dependent on the limited welfare state pro tectio n wh ich is av aila ble: m an y individ ua ls, including single parents and others, are effec tiv el y forc ed into th e ¯e xibl e lo w-w ag e labour market, whereas in the Netherlands or Scandinavia, they are insulated by the w elfare state. B ur ge rs c o nc lu de s b y a rg uin g th at t he Dutch case implies th at on e shou ld sp ec ify, rather than fa lsify th e glob al ci ty thes is. In pa rticular, na tional w elfa re state arran ge m en ts an d speci®c urban histories are important mediating variables as to the local outcomes of international economic restructuring (p. 100) I accept that in my original paper, as Burgers suggests, I attempted to falsify Sassen’s polaris atio n thes is as it appli es to oc cu pa tio na l po lari sa tio n in th e la bour forc e, bu t I would argue that, in order to lay the found ati on s f or a m o re p re ci se s pe c i® ca ti on which recognises the existence of growing income inequality and polarisation alongside prof ess iona lis atio n of th e pa id la bour forc e a nd h ig h l ev els o f un em plo ym e nt , it is ne ce ss ary to po in t to th e ¯aw s in Sa ss en ’s thes is which is alm os t entirely ba se d on th e changing industrial structure and the occu pa tio na l stru ct ure of the labo u r forc e. I agree that national welfare state regimes are important mediating variables. This is why, in our joint introduction (Dieleman and Hamnett, 1994) to the Special Issue of Urban Studie s on Randstad Holland, we argued that it is crucial to locate discussions of globalisa tio n and its im pa cts on ur ba n sy stem s in an analysis of the variations in welfare state
POLARISATION IN DUTCH CITIES: A RESPONSE
regimes and modes of social regulation. As we put it: Th e wea kn ess of th e th esis which se es global city problems as inevitable is that it take s littl e or no ac coun t of th e urba n social and political context, and largely ignores both the structure and funding of th e welfa re state and th e stru cture and ro le of the planning system. The globalisation thes is te nd s to ne glec t issu es of `soc ia l regulation’ by nation states¼ Put bluntly, we do not accept that there is a necessary and inevitable link between the process of globalisation and the social and environm e nta l pr obl e m s f ou n d in m a ny g lo ba l cities. The links are contingent, and de pe nd to a sign i® ca nt extent on th e sc ale and structure of welfare state intervention, income distribution and planning. (p. 359) We added that: ªwhat is important for the Randst ad an d th e glob a l citie s thes is in ge ne ra l is th at it (t he D ut ch w e lf are s ys te m ) c om b in es r ela tiv el y g en er ous w e lf are bene®ts with easy access to the systemº (p. 361) and we quoted Kloosterman and Lambooy’s view that: ªthe high rate of non-par ticipatio n in the la bour forc e (in th e Randst ad) do es no t ha ve su ch as de stru ctiv e im p ac t a s i t d oe s in A m e ri ca n c it ie sº (p . 361). We concluded by stating that: Th ere is no sing le glob al city , only glob al cities, located within the context of their own particular nation state. It is important that , in ex am inin g the im pa ct of th e pr ocesses of globalisation on global cities, we do not lose sight of their national backgrounds, contexts and cultures. (p. 363) The po in t of thes e ra th er ex te nsiv e se lf-quo ta tio ns is to stress th at I en dors e th e ke y po in t of Burgers’s argument regarding the crucial mediating role of welfare states on global restructuring. But, as I have argued elsewhere (Hamnett, 1995), Sassen (1991) almost entirely neglects the role of national variation in welfare regimes and argues that: ªthe nation state is becoming a less central a c to r in t he w or ld º (p . 1 67 ) a nd t ha t t he
10 9
welfare state is less important under the ªnew economic regimeº (p. 338). Hence, she views economic restructuring and, particularly, the growth of both highly skilled and highly paid a nd lo w- sk il l a nd low -p aid w or k a s th e causes of polarisation. In many European countries, however, the existence of strong welfare states (even though they are often under threat) has meant that global economic pres su re s ha ve no t le d to the absolut e grow th of a large low-wage service economy. Instead, they have resulted in growing unem ploy m en t and a la rge an d gr ow in g state-dependent population. This is a very different outcome from that found in New York and Los Angeles. Hence my critique of Sassen’s attempt to generalise a peculiarly American set of circumstances to all global cities.
References B UC K , N. (1991) Social polarisation, economic restructuring and labour market change in London and New York . Occasional Paper 2, E SR C R ese ar c h C en tr e on M icro -S ocia l Change, Colchester, University of Essex. B UC K , N. (1993) Comparative income distribution in two welfare regimes: the impacts of household and labour market change in Britain and Germany . Working Papers of the European Scienti®c Foundation Network on Household Panel Studies, No. 84, University of Essex, Colchester. B UC K , N. (1994) Social divisions and labour market change in London: national, urban and globa l fac tor s. Unpublished paper for ESRC London Seminar, 28 October. B UR G ER S , J. (1995) No polarisation in Dutch cities? Inequality in a corporatist country, Urban Studies , 33, pp. 99±105. D IELEMAN , F. and H AMNETT , C. (1994) Globalisa tio n, reg ulati on an d the urba n syste m, Urban Studies , 31, pp. 357±364. E SPING- A NDERSON , G. (1990) The Three W orlds of Welfare Capitalism . Cambridge: Polity Press. E SPING- A NDERSON , G. (1993) Changing Classes; Strati ®catio n an d Mobility in Po st-i nd u str ia l So cietie s. London: Sage. AMNETT H , C. (1994a) Social polarisation in global cities: theory and evidence, Urban Studies, 31, pp . 40 1± 424. H AMNETT , C. (1994b ) Socio-economic change in London: professionalisation not polarisation, Bu ilt Environ men t , 20, pp. 192±203.
11 0
CHRIS HAMNETT
H AMNETT , C. (1995) Social polarisation, economic restructuring and welfare state regimes. Paper given at the 10th Urban Change and Con¯ict Conference , Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, 5 September. M OLLENKOPF , J.H. and C ASTELLS , M. (Eds) (1991) Dual City: Restructuring New York . New York: Russe ll Sa ge Fo un da tion .
S ASSEN , S . (1 98 4 ) T he n e w la bo u r d em an d in global cities, in: M.P. S MITH (Ed.) Cities in Transformation, vol. 26, Urban Affairs Annual , Beverly Hills: Sage. ASSEN S , S. (1991) The Global City: New York, London and Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
